The Dance of Eternity (24)
Applying Group Selection to Individual Behavior in Business Organizations
In the previous post (The Dance of Eternity (23)), we examined the claim that natural selection in biological evolution operates on multiple levels, not only on the individual but also on the group. This multilayered action of natural selection allows the evolution of altruism within groups — altruism that extends beyond kinship, includes non-related individuals of the same species, and even crosses species boundaries into symbiotic relationships. This phenomenon cannot be fully explained by individual-level natural selection alone, which tends to prioritize self-preservation.
If we apply this idea to corporate management, it suggests that as long as organizational members derive some benefit — whether directly or indirectly — through mechanisms that encourage prioritizing the organization’s interests, even at the expense of personal sacrifice, altruistic behavior within the organization can be justified. In other words, it becomes natural to explain why individuals might willingly act in ways that support the long-term survival and growth of the organization, even if such actions require personal sacrifice.
There are two implicit premises:
1. By considering fellow organizational members as akin to “kin” or “the same species” in the biological sense, individuals may come to accept the survival and prosperity of their colleagues, even if it means their own “death” (in a metaphorical or symbolic sense).
Get Masato Iino’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
2. In relationships of mutual dependence — “Give & Take” — where personal sacrifice doesn’t necessarily lead to the individual’s demise, there’s a tacit understanding that free riders will be punished. This social contract is maintained by the group imposing sanctions on those who do not reciprocate.
The first premise is vividly exemplified by the image of soldiers going to the battlefield to defend their homeland, accepting the possibility of death. The idea of “the homeland” here embodies the identity of “kin” or “the same species.” People are willing to sacrifice themselves for the survival and prosperity of this “homeland” because they share the fantasy — what Yuval Noah Harari calls a “fiction” — that self-sacrifice is naturally justified for the greater good of their nation. Even in less extreme situations, such as competition in team sports or corporate activities, the norm of “sacrifice for the organization” is often tacitly assumed. However, whether organizational members truly identify with the organization as “kin” or “the same species” depends on the extent to which they resonate with the organization’s values and vision. This sense of shared identity is not guaranteed. Yet, in many cases, lofty concepts like patriotism or loyalty to the company become the justification for enforcing altruism and self-sacrifice, regardless of whether individuals actually feel aligned with the organization’s goals.
Adam Grant’s “Givers, Takers, Matchers” Framework
The second premise, by contrast, is much more intuitive. In human relationships and business dealings, there is often an implicit expectation of equivalent value exchange. Even in the seemingly harsh world of vampire bats, this mutual dependency is rigorously maintained, and free riders are punished by the group. Adam Grant’s Give and Take (2012), a book I frequently revisit, offers a fresh perspective on this, despite the title’s seemingly simple “Give & Take” framework. Grant divides people into three categories: “givers,” “takers,” and “matchers.”
Givers help others selflessly without expecting anything in return. When I hear this, I immediately think of Forrest Gump (1994), the film starring Tom Hanks. If you haven’t seen it, I highly recommend it. Takers, on the other hand, prioritize their own gain, seeking to benefit from others while focusing primarily on their own interests. Matchers strive for balance in their relationships, placing importance on the idea that if they receive something, they should give something back, and vice versa.
I’m sure many of you can think of takers in your own circles. I know quite a few myself. Though these people probably don’t see themselves as takers; it’s just their natural, unconscious behavior. Conventional business theory often assumes that selfish takers will exploit kind-hearted givers and succeed. Many of us, myself included, probably consider ourselves matchers. In a business context, reciprocal relationships — where trust is built through fair value exchange — are often seen as the foundation of good relationships. At least, that’s how I see it. In fact, I believe that fair value exchange is highly regarded as a good business practice, and many of us are educated to become matchers through our business experiences.
However, Grant argues that givers have a higher likelihood of long-term success than takers or matchers. Givers tend to build networks of trust and cooperation around them, which, in turn, increases their chances of success. That said, not all givers succeed. Some givers end up overextending themselves and become exhausted, unable to achieve success because of their excessive generosity. Grant distinguishes between successful givers and overly kind givers, emphasizing that successful givers engage in “smart giving” without sacrificing their own interests too much. These givers are able to help others while managing their time and resources wisely, maintaining a balance in their relationships.
Grant stresses the importance of adopting a giver mentality in the workplace and in business. According to him, givers are more likely to exhibit creativity and foster cooperative relationships, which can enhance the overall performance of an organization. By cultivating a culture of giving, organizations are more likely to achieve long-term success.
This perspective aligns with many theories attempting to explain the paradox of altruism observed in biological evolution, as discussed in The Dance of Eternity (23). Despite the apparent dominance of self-preserving behaviors at the individual level, many species have evolved altruistic behaviors within groups. Grant’s argument that successful givers build supportive networks of trust directly resonates with the logic of group selection and multi-level selection in biological evolution.
Forced Altruism Under Totalitarianism
Given this, the persistence of self-sacrifice and altruistic behavior by individuals within a group, and their contribution to the survival and prosperity of the group as a whole, seem to hinge on a few conditions: individuals must be able to recognize or at least feel that the survival and prosperity of others in the group — those they can identify with, whether through kinship or shared purpose — will somehow benefit them in the long run, even if they are not consciously aware of it. In authoritarian regimes or corporations with strong coercive tendencies, efforts are often made to enforce group loyalty through punishment rather than merit, imposing self-sacrifice without this sense of mutual benefit. From the perspective of biological evolution, however, such an approach is unlikely to be sustainable.
